Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Willie Wonka and the Pedophile Factory   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line 64
    More: Weird  
•       •       •

8875 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Aug 2014 at 11:45 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-09 10:58:42 AM  
OK....
 
2014-08-09 11:40:00 AM  
[hack hock hork]

Sorry. I was just clearing my throat. I may be coming down with a (nabo) cough.
 
2014-08-09 11:46:44 AM  
Wait until you guys get a load of the sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. Who knew Oompa-loompas could dress so sexy?

/50 Shades of Orange on deck.
 
2014-08-09 11:46:57 AM  
Since it is the Daily Mail, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nobody actually gives a shiat.
 
2014-08-09 11:52:29 AM  
Apparently they've never seen a woman's face when thinking about chocolate
 
2014-08-09 11:55:55 AM  
unlockyourwealthradio.com
 
2014-08-09 12:00:13 PM  
Are they saying Charlie was a cross-dresser?
 
2014-08-09 12:02:41 PM  
I assume that's supposed to be Veruca Salt.

So even forgetting the Toddlers & Tiaras angle, whoever decided that the cover of the book should focus on her, and not Charlie Bucket, Willy Wonka, or even chocolate has no business working in the industry,
 
2014-08-09 12:07:58 PM  

LoneWolf343: Since it is the Daily Mail, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nobody actually gives a shiat.


I'll go so far as to say that there is no "50th anniversary edition", or any plans for one.
 
2014-08-09 12:14:09 PM  

gunga galunga: I assume that's supposed to be Veruca Salt.

So even forgetting the Toddlers & Tiaras angle, whoever decided that the cover of the book should focus on her, and not Charlie Bucket, Willy Wonka, or even chocolate has no business working in the industry,


This, I just don't get the point at all of that cover.
 
2014-08-09 12:14:12 PM  

gunga galunga: I assume that's supposed to be Veruca Salt.

So even forgetting the Toddlers & Tiaras angle, whoever decided that the cover of the book should focus on her, and not Charlie Bucket, Willy Wonka, or even chocolate has no business working in the industry,


Meh, one of the major themes of the book was what fame does to children and how they and their parent's react to it.  If you're going for a cover which expresses that darker side of the book than this fits the bill fine.
 
2014-08-09 12:17:50 PM  

gunga galunga: So even forgetting the Toddlers & Tiaras angle, whoever decided that the cover of the book should focus on her, and not Charlie Bucket, Willy Wonka, or even chocolate has no business working in the industry,


Yes, all the pieces start to fall into place.

...Probably an oompa-loompa that worked marketing, forced into early retirement, and nursing an a old grudge.
 
2014-08-09 12:18:44 PM  
How is that image a sexualization of anything? Maybe you need to be a pedo to see it.
 
2014-08-09 12:18:50 PM  
1. It's supposed to be creepy.
2. If you think a picture of a child with most of her body covered in an amorphous blob of furs is "sexualized", maybe you should search your soul and probably erase your internet search history.
3. Daily Fail, etc
 
2014-08-09 12:21:58 PM  
Stupid. When I read a book, I want to read the book, not look at the cover, which has been replaced by a picture from the failed movie that didn't even have the same plot as the book I'm reading, because they changed it to another story for the movie so it would appeal to more people, but still put the movie picture on the cover, so they could sell 20 more copies of it, even though the book was published in 1954 and the movie was made in 2002.
 
2014-08-09 12:26:07 PM  
Uncle Paul Hargis approves.
 
2014-08-09 12:32:25 PM  
Well, considering that Dahl described Snozzberries as testicles, I can see this being the worst scandal of them all about the book.


Oh, wait....   The Snozzberries TASTE like Snozzberries?
 
2014-08-09 12:48:13 PM  

Thunderboy: How is that image a sexualization of anything? Maybe you need to be a pedo to see it.


Ftfy
 
2014-08-09 12:51:18 PM  
I seem to remember him having a wife swapping story where a guy and his neighbor wanted to bang each others wives, so they got the respective wives drunk, and snuck into each other rooms, under the guise that the wives would never know.  With the surprise endings of one of the wives saying "honey, that is the first time in our marriage i have enjoyed banging you"

Here we go.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Switcheroo
 
2014-08-09 12:57:20 PM  

gunga galunga: I assume that's supposed to be Veruca Salt.

So even forgetting the Toddlers & Tiaras angle, whoever decided that the cover of the book should focus on her, and not Charlie Bucket, Willy Wonka, or even chocolate has no business working in the industry,


Except that Veruca is the epitome of exactly what is wrong with ALL of the bratty kids. They're all spoiled, except Charlie, who is just an excited kid who farks around a little, and they all learn their lesson.

That's the point of the story, and it's been obvious for decades. Charlie isn't the point, Willy Wonka isn't the point. Bad little boys and girls are the point. It's really just a Grimm's Fairy Tale for the 20th century, except instead of being eaten by bears or wolves, the kids in the story learn their lessons through mishaps in the chocolate factory.

Veruca is the perfect example of a whiny bratty kid. And whiny bratty kids get what's coming to them in the book. Charlie is the only one whose trespasses are a result of being a little shiathead, but that is really a secondary plot line.
 
2014-08-09 01:32:59 PM  
C'mon! Everybody knows the book doesn't appeal to pedophiles. It's all about coprophilia.
 
2014-08-09 01:46:14 PM  

Mikey1969: gunga galunga: I assume that's supposed to be Veruca Salt.

So even forgetting the Toddlers & Tiaras angle, whoever decided that the cover of the book should focus on her, and not Charlie Bucket, Willy Wonka, or even chocolate has no business working in the industry,

Except that Veruca is the epitome of exactly what is wrong with ALL of the bratty kids. They're all spoiled, except Charlie, who is just an excited kid who farks around a little, and they all learn their lesson.

That's the point of the story, and it's been obvious for decades. Charlie isn't the point, Willy Wonka isn't the point. Bad little boys and girls are the point. It's really just a Grimm's Fairy Tale for the 20th century, except instead of being eaten by bears or wolves, the kids in the story learn their lessons through mishaps in the chocolate factory.

Veruca is the perfect example of a whiny bratty kid. And whiny bratty kids get what's coming to them in the book. Charlie is the only one whose trespasses are a result of being a little shiathead, but that is really a secondary plot line.


This, plus the fact that the parents made the kids that way, which is why the cover is suited to the story.

The cover is not "sexualizing" a child.  That is almost always a stupid argument of projection just as bad as the parent's projecting on the children in the book.

Equating a child with styled hair and nice clothes maybe some make-up with "sexualized" is the activity of a sick mind.
 
2014-08-09 01:52:33 PM  

gunga galunga: I assume that's supposed to be Veruca Salt.

So even forgetting the Toddlers & Tiaras angle, whoever decided that the cover of the book should focus on her, and not Charlie Bucket, Willy Wonka, or even chocolate has no business working in the industry,


Nope

FTA: Penguin said the girl in the cover photograph was not intended to be either Violet Beauregarde or Veruca Salt, the spoilt young girls who feature in Dahl's tale, but a representation of the 'twisted' parent-child relationships depicted throughout the book.
 
2014-08-09 01:58:19 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Mikey1969: gunga galunga: I assume that's supposed to be Veruca Salt.

So even forgetting the Toddlers & Tiaras angle, whoever decided that the cover of the book should focus on her, and not Charlie Bucket, Willy Wonka, or even chocolate has no business working in the industry,

Except that Veruca is the epitome of exactly what is wrong with ALL of the bratty kids. They're all spoiled, except Charlie, who is just an excited kid who farks around a little, and they all learn their lesson.

That's the point of the story, and it's been obvious for decades. Charlie isn't the point, Willy Wonka isn't the point. Bad little boys and girls are the point. It's really just a Grimm's Fairy Tale for the 20th century, except instead of being eaten by bears or wolves, the kids in the story learn their lessons through mishaps in the chocolate factory.

Veruca is the perfect example of a whiny bratty kid. And whiny bratty kids get what's coming to them in the book. Charlie is the only one whose trespasses are a result of being a little shiathead, but that is really a secondary plot line.

This, plus the fact that the parents made the kids that way, which is why the cover is suited to the story.

The cover is not "sexualizing" a child.  That is almost always a stupid argument of projection just as bad as the parent's projecting on the children in the book.

Equating a child with styled hair and nice clothes maybe some make-up with "sexualized" is the activity of a sick mind.



Good point, I hadn't really thought of that angle.
 
2014-08-09 01:58:23 PM  
Oompa loompa doompaty doo, I wouldn't hit it and neither should you.

What do you get trolling 4chan all day?
A sprained wrist and a bit of the ghey
 
2014-08-09 02:09:53 PM  
I like to start every day with something blisterly stupid. Which is why Fark is my home page.

That cover is completely idiotic. If you want to appeal to adults, just do one of the fat little shiat drowning in chocolate.
 
2014-08-09 02:10:56 PM  

cryinoutloud: Stupid. When I read a book, I want to read the book, not look at the cover, which has been replaced by a picture from the failed movie that didn't even have the same plot as the book I'm reading, because they changed it to another story for the movie so it would appeal to more people, but still put the movie picture on the cover, so they could sell 20 more copies of it, even though the book was published in 1954 and the movie was made in 2002.


Eh, while Depp's performance doesn't hold a candle to Gene Wilder, there were many parts of the movie that were truer to the book than the original film, including the Oompa Loompa songs, the Great Glass Elevator actually being made of glass, and the bad children leaving the factory changed. It's just too bad Burton felt the need to put in the stupid "Wonka's dad" subplot.
 
2014-08-09 02:13:52 PM  
Johnny Depp doing his Michael Jackson impression pretty much already covered this.
 
2014-08-09 02:26:59 PM  
A kid's made-up face, big hair, and vacant gaze into the soulless world of current fashion styles is a turn on to the readers of the Mail apparently.
 
2014-08-09 02:27:31 PM  
Will this new version also include the missing chapter about Miranda Mary Piker?

http://roalddahl.wikia.com/wiki/Miranda_Mary_Piker
 
2014-08-09 02:34:39 PM  

Thunderboy: How is that image a sexualization of anything? Maybe you need to be a pedo to see it.


It doesn't put you in mind of Jon Benet Ramsey?
 
2014-08-09 02:35:30 PM  
Jim'll fix it.
 
2014-08-09 02:47:18 PM  

lindalouwho: Thunderboy: How is that image a sexualization of anything? Maybe you need to be a pedo to see it.

It doesn't put you in mind of Jon Benet Ramsey?


For all intents and purposes, she's just a disembodied head on a feather boa pillow.

I think you already need the latent urge to jump from she has a pretty face to I'm getting turned on by that pretty face.
 
2014-08-09 02:52:31 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: cryinoutloud: Stupid. When I read a book, I want to read the book, not look at the cover, which has been replaced by a picture from the failed movie that didn't even have the same plot as the book I'm reading, because they changed it to another story for the movie so it would appeal to more people, but still put the movie picture on the cover, so they could sell 20 more copies of it, even though the book was published in 1954 and the movie was made in 2002.

Eh, while Depp's performance doesn't hold a candle to Gene Wilder, there were many parts of the movie that were truer to the book than the original film, including the Oompa Loompa songs, the Great Glass Elevator actually being made of glass, and the bad children leaving the factory changed. It's just too bad Burton felt the need to put in the stupid "Wonka's dad" subplot.


Though I liked Christopher Lee, it's the idiocy of this generation that we have to spell out origins and backstories for everything. and to make it neatly freudian, no less. Wonka was just an eccentric force of nature that kids dont understand. lots of stuff in their life is like that.

and if you think i'm picking on this generation of filmgoers, in the old days they didnt think you'd get how something worked, and spend 9 hours tediously walking through a scheme.the woodward and berrnstein movie is like that.
 
2014-08-09 03:01:34 PM  

Jaden Smith First of His Name: lindalouwho: Thunderboy: How is that image a sexualization of anything? Maybe you need to be a pedo to see it.

It doesn't put you in mind of Jon Benet Ramsey?

For all intents and purposes, she's just a disembodied head on a feather boa pillow.

I think you already need the latent urge to jump from she has a pretty face to I'm getting turned on by that pretty face.


I'm just not a fan of make-up and adult hair styles on little girls. Same for the Kid Pageants. We could do without mainstream pedo fodder.
 
2014-08-09 03:02:20 PM  

Shadowtag: I like to start every day with something blisterly stupid. Which is why Fark is my home page.

That cover is completely idiotic. If you want to appeal to adults, just do one of the fat little shiat drowning in chocolate.


If I were to design a darker cover for this book, it would have been the four disfigured brats leaving the factory.
 
2014-08-09 03:04:43 PM  

lindalouwho: I'm just not a fan of make-up and adult hair styles on little girls. Same for the Kid Pageants. We could do without mainstream pedo fodder.


I see the argument. If she were prancing around like Little Miss Sunshine or something, it would be creepy.

Just sitting there she just looks like a doll's head, which I suppose is the entire point.
 
2014-08-09 03:05:17 PM  

gunga galunga: Shadowtag: I like to start every day with something blisterly stupid. Which is why Fark is my home page.

That cover is completely idiotic. If you want to appeal to adults, just do one of the fat little shiat drowning in chocolate.

If I were to design a darker cover for this book, it would have been the four disfigured brats leaving the factory.


Although Augustus Gloop was squeezed thin, so he was done a favor. Veruca and her father, the most obnoxious of the lot, were only covered with garbage. A mink ruined, perhaps, but she has five others at home.

On the other hand, Violet is permanently purple and Mike Teevee is stretched to ten feet tall.

Not exactly balanced there, now is it.
 
2014-08-09 03:06:11 PM  

Fano: Oompa loompa doompaty doo, I wouldn't hit it and neither should you.

What do you get trolling 4chan all day?
A sprained wrist and a bit of the ghey


Whacking is fine when it's once in a while
But it's repulsive, revolting and wrong
fapping and fapping all day long
The way that a farker does
 
2014-08-09 03:09:25 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: gunga galunga: I assume that's supposed to be Veruca Salt.

So even forgetting the Toddlers & Tiaras angle, whoever decided that the cover of the book should focus on her, and not Charlie Bucket, Willy Wonka, or even chocolate has no business working in the industry,

Nope

FTA: Penguin said the girl in the cover photograph was not intended to be either Violet Beauregarde or Veruca Salt, the spoilt young girls who feature in Dahl's tale, but a representation of the 'twisted' parent-child relationships depicted throughout the book.


So it's meant to depict them both and Mike tv and Augustus. They need a new spokesman
 
2014-08-09 03:21:32 PM  

Jaden Smith First of His Name: lindalouwho: I'm just not a fan of make-up and adult hair styles on little girls. Same for the Kid Pageants. We could do without mainstream pedo fodder.

I see the argument. If she were prancing around like Little Miss Sunshine or something, it would be creepy.

Just sitting there she just looks like a doll's head, which I suppose is the entire point.


I also see your point.
However, you are not a pedo. And a pedo will see the little girl, not a doll - they make it clear in the article that it is a real little girl.
I hope you understand the concern; many people have it, especially ones with daughters.
 
2014-08-09 03:24:38 PM  
This looks like it's the kind of cover meant to invoke discussion or be on a test in a high school English class.  That being said, this was required reading for me in the 4th grade, and the symbolism of the cover would've gone over my head at that age.  That, or maybe I just wasn't the brightest student at that age.
 
2014-08-09 03:29:30 PM  
by invoke, I meant provoke.  Guess I haven't changed much since 4th grade.
 
2014-08-09 03:38:14 PM  

Fano: Tyrone Slothrop: cryinoutloud: Stupid. When I read a book, I want to read the book, not look at the cover, which has been replaced by a picture from the failed movie that didn't even have the same plot as the book I'm reading, because they changed it to another story for the movie so it would appeal to more people, but still put the movie picture on the cover, so they could sell 20 more copies of it, even though the book was published in 1954 and the movie was made in 2002.

Eh, while Depp's performance doesn't hold a candle to Gene Wilder, there were many parts of the movie that were truer to the book than the original film, including the Oompa Loompa songs, the Great Glass Elevator actually being made of glass, and the bad children leaving the factory changed. It's just too bad Burton felt the need to put in the stupid "Wonka's dad" subplot.

Though I liked Christopher Lee, it's the idiocy of this generation that we have to spell out origins and backstories for everything. and to make it neatly freudian, no less. Wonka was just an eccentric force of nature that kids dont understand. lots of stuff in their life is like that.

and if you think i'm picking on this generation of filmgoers, in the old days they didnt think you'd get how something worked, and spend 9 hours tediously walking through a scheme.the woodward and berrnstein movie is like that.


This
It's why those horror movies sucked lately.
I don't care to see Kruger's pay. Or Micheal Myers. Or Jason Vorhees.
Just except they were who they were and move on.
 
2014-08-09 03:41:18 PM  

Zombie DJ: This
It's why those horror movies sucked lately.
I don't care to see Kruger's pay. Or Micheal Myers. Or Jason Vorhees.
Just except they were who they were and move on.


I'm still not clear on who this Batman guy is, so I would welcome another origin story for that character.
 
2014-08-09 03:46:54 PM  

Fano: Tyrone Slothrop: cryinoutloud: Stupid. When I read a book, I want to read the book, not look at the cover, which has been replaced by a picture from the failed movie that didn't even have the same plot as the book I'm reading, because they changed it to another story for the movie so it would appeal to more people, but still put the movie picture on the cover, so they could sell 20 more copies of it, even though the book was published in 1954 and the movie was made in 2002.

Eh, while Depp's performance doesn't hold a candle to Gene Wilder, there were many parts of the movie that were truer to the book than the original film, including the Oompa Loompa songs, the Great Glass Elevator actually being made of glass, and the bad children leaving the factory changed. It's just too bad Burton felt the need to put in the stupid "Wonka's dad" subplot.

Though I liked Christopher Lee, it's the idiocy of this generation that we have to spell out origins and backstories for everything. and to make it neatly freudian, no less. Wonka was just an eccentric force of nature that kids dont understand. lots of stuff in their life is like that.

and if you think i'm picking on this generation of filmgoers, in the old days they didnt think you'd get how something worked, and spend 9 hours tediously walking through a scheme.the woodward and berrnstein movie is like that.


Johnny Depp's performance reminded me of Ebert's review of Waterworld, where he remarks upon Kevin Costner's decision to play the nameless hero as a sociopath: "although that's a logical choice, it isn't a very entertaining one."

Yeah, it makes sense that Willy Wonka, who in the Tim Burton version, was disowned by his dentist father as a child, and grew up in his own self-made Disneyland, would be an antisocial manchild. That doesn't make it fun to watch. Certainly not when compared to Wilder's batshiat insane mad scientist who discovers his soft spot.

When I first heard that Tim Burton was doing a remake, my first thought was that Wonka HAD to be played by Christopher Walken. I still believe that if he had been cast instead, Burton's version would be considered a worthy remake.
 
2014-08-09 04:01:12 PM  
I have not been this outraged since I notice how inappropriately the Oompa Loompas touch Violet as they roll her out of the room for juice squeezing.
earnthis.net

BTW The snozzberries really do taste like snozzberries

The dingleberries are right out!
 
2014-08-09 04:11:46 PM  

Dahnkster: I have not been this outraged since I notice how inappropriately the Oompa Loompas touch Violet as they roll her out of the room for juice squeezing.
[earnthis.net image 500x281]

BTW The snozzberries really do taste like snozzberries

The dingleberries are right out!


Well, at that point she was more blueberry than human. And you can tell, the Oompa Loompas were struggling with the logistics of the task.

/Non-attorney paid spokesperson on behalf of the Oompa Loompas.
//I'm paid in chocolate.
 
2014-08-09 04:22:30 PM  

lindalouwho: Jaden Smith First of His Name: lindalouwho: I'm just not a fan of make-up and adult hair styles on little girls. Same for the Kid Pageants. We could do without mainstream pedo fodder.

I see the argument. If she were prancing around like Little Miss Sunshine or something, it would be creepy.

Just sitting there she just looks like a doll's head, which I suppose is the entire point.

I also see your point.
However, you are not a pedo. And a pedo will see the little girl, not a doll - they make it clear in the article that it is a real little girl.
I hope you understand the concern; many people have it, especially ones with daughters.


Maybe I just don't understand the pathology, but wouldn't a pedo want the child to look like a child, not a "little adult"?
 
2014-08-09 04:37:40 PM  

lindalouwho: Thunderboy: How is that image a sexualization of anything? Maybe you need to be a pedo to see it.

It doesn't put you in mind of Jon Benet Ramsey?


Sure, but I didn't want to have sex with her either.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report